|
|
#1
04-03-2006, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
Some of you may have heard the stat thrown out that only 5-7% of online poker players are long-term winners. When I first heard that stat I thought it was BS and way too low.
The more I've played, the more I've come to believe that number is pretty accurate. Some of the reasons why it is so low have always been obvious to me. People who are otherwise good poker players do foolish things like improperly manage their bankroll, play over their heads, play while tired or pissed off and don't have enough emotional control. However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you. I think that's when a lot of people who otherwise have the ability to make it long-term, go belly up. Poker can be an absolutely brutal game at times and anyone who plans on playing a lot better be prepared for that. 
|
|
#4
04-03-2006, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that. [/ QUOTE ] not true, the independent variable that determines how many people can win is the rake. If the rake changes, the % of winners changes.
|
|
#6
04-03-2006, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
play while tired or pissed off and don't have enough emotional control. [/ QUOTE ] Playing tired is my bane latley, I actually fell asleep in an online tourney after playing almost 4 hours and was dozing at a live touney after almost 5. When this happens I just start pushing to end the misery and go pass out. It is awful and stupid but I make a good living during the day so an extra grand playing poker isnt a big deal, and it should be.
|
|
#7
04-03-2006, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that. [/ QUOTE ] I wonder what the maximum possible percentage of winners actually is... I guess it really depends on how much the donators are donating, instead of how many donators are donating. In any case, it is still possible for there to be 0% winners.
|
|
#8
04-03-2006, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not a math expert, but it seems to me that if many of the losing players worked to become better players they could take away some of the money that the winning players are getting. My thought is that the pie would still be the same size, but divided by more people, and the people who were getting the biggest share, would see their share shrink. Isn't that what all the good players are talking about when they worry about the games getting tougher? Regardless of what the actual percentage is that the game can support as long-term winners, there are things that losing players do that make them losers. One of the points of my post was to discuss a major reason that people often overlook.
|
|
#9
04-03-2006, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that. [/ QUOTE ] Could you please elaborate on this? I think it has everything to do with how well or poorly you play- what else is the determining factor? And why do the maths dictate that only 5% (say) can win long term? Surely the logical conclusion is that (over the long term, with NO rake) if eveyone played perfect- then everyone would break even. And if there is a rake and everyone played perfectly- then over the long term, everyone (bar the host) would lose? That is my understanding- but I would love to be corrected- because if my understanding is incorrect, I need to know asap. Cheers, Ian
|
|
#10
04-03-2006, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that. [/ QUOTE ] How well/poorly one plays in relation to opponents is directly relevant to longterm results. Your statement is only really true if everyone plays the same way and/or play the same people. Which isn't reality. b
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
